Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 10:47 amPosts: 922Location: somewere floating between here and the other side

Tomas91 wrote:

Did you weigh it out with downtube & chainstay protector, BB bearings, headset bearings, bottle boss bolts etc. removed? That stuff can add some (sometimes suprisingly much) weight...BTW, this is probably the main reason, why they don´t list their bikes´ or frames´weight. Not only it varies between sizes, it can also vary to some extent between two identical models.

I´m deciding between 9.8 and 9.8 SL, the SL looks better IMHO, has better, or rather more durable fork, lighter wheelset (Which I would probably replace anyway, so that´s not a big issue) and about 300 g lighter frame, but I´m not really sure, if that´s worth that 1.800 € of price difference. Probably I´m not that much of a weight weenie , but anyway, what´s your opinion?

I think i only had the bb bearings in not the rubber protector, but to be honest i first fly got rep,ace after the bb shell wasnt abke to hold bearings anymore and my replacement sl frame started crancking around seatpost after less than 500 km, the 27.2 syntace post is correct size wise but the frame isnt, hence the cracks, i have lost most of my sympathy for trek, i mean if they stuck with a normal bb shell ( treated ) and check there molds for sizing they woulndt have to advertise that they offer ' worlds best warranty policy'

Other than, it does ride really nice, i havent ridden other cf mtb but its stiff and comfy im still running the original 3 year old fox forks and an xtr groupset with thunder burt it sad just under 9.5 kilo very nice (;

Internal cable routing isn´t really something I would miss anyway... I´m just tempted by that FOX fork and those 300 g of weight saving... But that price difference is just enormous. I could buy a set of top-notch carbon fiber wheels and sitll have a couple hundred € left, so I´ll probably act raitionally and stick with the non-SL version unless I got some super deal on that SL one.

That was my exact dilemma, I'm happy with the standard 9.8, although I must say the frame weight is a little disappointing. Stilll, 8.7kg for the bike isn't bad!

Re the 1100g SL frame - if Trek are like Scott (and I suspect they are) the lightest frames become 9.9s, the 9.8s are probably slightly heavier anyway, and may well have things like heavier paint. It'll also be a small size, and minus all the removable bits.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum